It's just not cricket

Although, it's November, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the cricket season is in full swing. The metaphors are coming thick and fast as a result of Sir Ian Botham's attack on the RSPB (see here).

But, we do take these attacks seriously. It is becoming increasingly clear that there are people within the shooting community who are seeking to hurt us. The Ashes Bodyline series of 1932-33 springs to mind (highlights of which you can watch here).   

These attacks seem set to continue.

And perhaps it is inevitable given the remarks made by Judge Peter Veits when issuing a sentence to Allen Lambert - the gamekeeper convicted of illegal killing of 10 buzzards and a sparrowhawk. His challenge was clear - estate managers must share responsibility for the activity of their staff and birds of prey must be allowed to live in harmony with shooting. You can read a full version of his statement here: DJ Peter Veits sentencing 6 Nov 2014.pdf

Why do I expect the attacks to continue?  Well, it is perfectly clear that some people intend to cause mischief.

Yesterday, while I was visiting Wallasea Island, the RSPB's most ambitious and inspirational habitat recreation project, we were contacted by David Rose, the Mail on Sunday journalist that printed the aggressive and crude attack from the shooting community last week.  He had, somehow, heard about the outcome of last week's private meeting with Defra with key stakeholders to discuss the hen harrier action plan.

In response to Mr Rose's inquiries, I sent him a message which to avoid misinterpretation I have published in full below.

We are keen to find out who is really behind these attacks. Sir Ian Botham may be the modern-day version of Harold Larwood, but we are still unclear as to who is the Douglas Jardine in this sorry saga.  

Just like the Australians' reaction to Bodyline, my overriding impression is that this is just not cricket.

Here is my email exchange with David Rose.

TO DAVID FROM MARTIN

Dear David,

Thank you for your two phonecalls today, the details of which have been passed on to me from our press office.

We are concerned that you appear to have been given incorrect and/or misleading information about the outcome of the Hen Harrier meeting at Defra earlier this week.

The meeting ended with no firm conclusion having been reached. Clearly, we all needed to go away and take stock - especially Defra as they are responsible for publication of any plan. It is therefore interesting that you have been given information that suggests otherwise, particularly as these meetings are supposed to be private. Inevitably, there is already a question in our minds about the motives of the people who have chosen to give you this false information.

For the record, we are actually supportive of two-thirds of the plan - those elements designed to reduce illegal killing of birds of prey and encourage the use of diversionary feeding on grouse moors - a proven means of reducing predation of grouse by hen harriers.  We have been clear about this throughout the discussions. 

However, we do have significant concerns about part of the package of measures outlined in the plan. These are not new concerns and the leaking of information from these meetings only serves to underline that not everyone is playing an entirely straight bat on this (please excuse the cricketing metaphor).

Specifically, we object to the part of the plan that proposes removing hen harrier chicks from their nests, then releasing them as adults (the so-called ‘brood management’ scheme). In the light of yesterday’s sentencing of a gamekeeper for poisoning birds of prey on a shooting estate, and the publication last week of the latest statistics about bird crime, it is clear that illegal killing of birds of prey is still prevalent. On that basis, we are concerned about signing up to any part of the plan that may result in more hen harriers being sent to their deaths. 

The onus is on the shooting industry to demonstrate that they are able to deliver the other elements of the plan with integrity, such that we see the hen harrier population recover, before we are prepared to commit to brood management.  The shooting industry needs to build trust – and, frankly, leaking misinformation in this way does not bode well, does it?

You also asked about money we recently received to protect hen harriers. This funding has come from the European Commission's Life+ fund and you can read more about it here: http://www.rspb.org.uk/media/releases/details.aspx?id=384243

The total grant we were awarded is a maximum of 1,134,966 Euros which at today’s exchange rate (c. 1.25 Euro/GBP) converts to around £900,000.  We have only received 40% of it so far. The next 40% will come at the end of 2016/early 2017 and the final 20% after the end of the project in 2019/2020.

We hope that you will choose to present this story accurately. We are sending our position in writing as we plan to publish it on our own website.

Best wishes,

Martin


TO MARTIN FROM DAVID

Dear Martin,

Thank you for this. One thing I¹m not clear about. Why do you think that removing chicks and releasing them as adults would send more hen harriers to their deaths - surely the aim of doing this is to allow their numbers to recover?

Best

David


TO DAVID FROM MARTIN

Dear David,

There is little sign that the grouse moor industry is prepared to condemn, let alone end illegal killing. The industry has to prove that it can deliver the recovery of hen harriers BEFORE we can even consider brood management, which will only work if the illegal persecution has stopped. At present, even if chicks were taken from the wild, reared and released, we have little confidence that they would be allowed to fly free from harm. 

I’m sorry, but surely it is the responsibility of those who are breaking the law to change their behaviour? Why should it be the duty of everyone else to compromise with them, especially when the stakes are so high?  We will have no part in such a scheme until there are signs that the hen harrier population is recovering WITHOUT the need for brood management. As I said in my previous email, this is a matter of trust.

Best wishes,

Martin